Because Bush lacks the balls to actually veto a bill, particularly a spending bill, he's now claiming he needs the line item veto to "control spending" (spending for which he is greatly responsible), among other reasons. (Earth to G.W.--maybe if you and Congress stopped spending like a bunch of drunken sailors, you wouldn't need the line item veto you now so hypocritically desire.)

Personally, I like the concept of a line item veto and am a staunch supporter of its present use in many states (almost all states have this gubernatorial power). However, with respect to a federal line item veto, as much as I'd love a president to have it--Clinton did for all of two years before the Supreme Court struck it down in this decision of 1998--I believe it is unconstitutional. It was clearly unconstitutional then, as explained in the 1998 decision, and I believe it is unconstitutional now, in its current talked about format of some enhanced "recission" authority.

Interestingly, though, I find Justice Scalia's arguments about standing in the 1998 case significant, for I believe that those who brought this suit lacked standing. I believe that a Member of Congress should have been the only one permitted to challenge the veto act.

Mr. Will writes an excellent column on this, one with which I agree.

Here is Will's column on this.

Here is an article on the 1998 SCOTUS decision.

Here is some more info on the case, Clinton v. City of New York.

[ March 16, 2006, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

God MIB.

It really pisses me off when I have to agree with you.

You are sopposed to be the unreasonable right wing nutcase.

I end up putting one hand on my wallet and the other on the family jewels every time it happens just to check they are still there.

Stop being so damn reasonable.

R

*MIB cackles his evil laugh.*

Thrills me this does.

Confounding you I am. Perplex you I do. Fascinating this is.

[ March 16, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Wow....when Dumbya's poll numbers get down into the low 30s, even Judge Judy starts to diss him. But don't worry IT, you're not agreeing with Judgie (its the other way around).....you see, our logic and intelligence are finally starting to sink in.....there may be hope for him yet.

Oh, Miss hotatl, more wrong you could not be. So unaware have you been.

Ah, MIB. Still basking in the sunlight at your condo on the river De-Nile. So glad all is well in the world of MIB. Actually, MIB, for all your warts, I do have to agree with you on this one. Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who originally championed the idea of line-item veto?

[ March 16, 2006, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

Presidents used to have a line-item veto type power for spending items pre-Nixon. I think it was more of an informal power where they just "withheld" a percentage or two of a particular department or programs budget. Over time Congress exerted more and more control over the budget process and after Watergate took away even the informal line-item power that Presidents had. Reagan tried to get it back, but Congress, of course doesn't like to budge on giving away the power of the purse.

You're kind of correct. In the early days of our nation, presidents just refused to implement certain expenditures. Jefferson, for example, decided not to spend the $50,000 Congress wanted to use for some military items. However, the line item veto power, sought by many presidents, has never been available, save for the two years of the Clinton presidency.

Congress has, indeed, tried to give the president the line item veto power. A Republican-controlled Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, giving President Clinton this type of veto. However, the Supreme Court struck it down in 1998. There were Democrats who also supported this bill, just as there are once again members of both parties who support the president's call for a line item veto via some "recision" power.

But hey, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Senator Kerry: "Give president the line item veto."